Gothamist: Drudge: NY Times Nixed McCain Op-Ed

Leon Freilich

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:35:07 -0500

BUSH'S PRESIDENTIAL PRAYER Hear me, O Father, in my need, I am universally cursed; Fix the election, make McCain succeed So I'll no longer be reckoned the worst.

jaycjay

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:27:43 -0500

"If they can print Maureen Dowd's blather, why isn't McCain good enough?" They're not saying it's "not good enough." They're saying that in order to meet equal time requirements, it should be equal in content -- that is, it should not be an attack on Obama's stance, but an explanation of his own.

bxbrian

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:45:59 -0500

if the writing sucks, the writing sucks. nuff said.

glennQNYC

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:26:17 -0500

Considering all the other garbage the Times prints on its OpEd page, I'd expect that they could just print McCain's response. He isn't you or me, he's a United States Senator and the Republican candidate for President. A litle deference is in order. The quality of what he has to say will speak for itself - if it sucks, it's on him. :standing ovation:

NannyState

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:34:24 -0500

McCain's so mad about this that he's going to start climbing the Times Tower...uh, never mind.

Spiritof76

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:08:10 -0500

What's the big deal? Does anyone actually think McCain wrote it himself? All high-level politicians have people writing these things for them. If not their speechwriters, then at least another staff member.

cucarachita

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:00:18 -0500

If they can print Maureen Dowd's blather, why isn't McCain good enough? They're not a real liberal-leaning paper -- hasn't anyone figured that out yet? It's a paper for people who pretend to be liberal, but who are just as conservative as any neo-Reaganite, when nobody's looking. Or for the naive people who haven't figured that out yet.

eyekantspel

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:58:23 -0500

smokedgouda

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:44:43 -0500

While the Times has every right to decide what goes in their paper, especially their editorial page, they put themselves in a hole by appearing to favor Obama. Let's not kid ourselves, the Wall Street Journal would do the same in a second and never apologize for it. But the Times isn't the Journal in that the Times subjects their own bias to scrutiny and will correct themselves if wrong without grudges.

hungryghoast

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:39:05 -0500

it can't be any worse/foreheadslap-worthy than the crap Bill Kristol writes for them. though, that's not saying much.

jaycjay

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:20:24 -0500

"This is why I don't read the NYT." I don't see any error or bias in the Times decision. If the actual purpose of the McCain submission is the achieve "equal time" with Obama's, it makes sense that it should be the same type of submission. As the Times editor said in rejecting it, they would accept a piece in which he would "articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq." That is, do what Obama did with his. What's wrong with that? The least biased reporting of the incident is, not surprisingly, in the Politico article.

interlard

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:57:13 -0500

Try reading the "article" that McCain submitted. It's like the script from a Dubya speach: since the beginning of time.... blah blah blah... everything smells of roses really... because of something we did... I challenge anyone to get through the whole thing without drinking 3 cups of coffee to stay awake and not throwing up after such an overdose of corny BS. NOT what you want in a newspaper. I hope.

GOP

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:25:04 -0500

This is why I don't read the NYT. I get (more) fair and balanced reporting from the Daily News.

joeb

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:17:40 -0500

Seriously... I'm a lefty guy, but I read Drudge religiously. He isn't left nor right... he links to whatever is the most viscerally exciting stories of the day, sometimes with a police siren gif. Democrats will never forgive him for breaking parts of the Lewinsky scandal, but these days I find Drudge to be far less biased than most.

Billiamsburg

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:09:40 -0500

Time to call the whaaaambulance.

djwerdna

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:02:44 -0500

smokedgouda, you're right. he is biased in favor of the right, but I don't think he's as completely owned by the right as many people think.

smokedgouda

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:49:40 -0500

djwerdna, are you kidding? Drudge isn't even close to being critical of the right. He gets the most controversial news out there and covers politics well, but it's ALWAYS from a right-wing perspective. For a "balance" get your lefty fill at huffpost. Otherwise you are only getting one side of the story.

djwerdna

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:37:56 -0500

I'm glad that Drudge reports on potential media bias. I think a lot of people just view him as a right wing hack, but he is critical of both the right and the left and many of the links on his site point to liberal commentators. He's got a good sense of media affairs. http://thepeoplewithpower.blogspot.com/2008/07/senator-mccains-editorial-rejected-by.html

Politburo

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:33:57 -0500

Oh yeah? Well they rejected my op-ed, too. Welcome to the club, John. While I understand the NYT's reasoning, I do wonder how much they considered the practical effects of this decision. This will be another silly meta controversy, and will invite the usual canards about the media from the GOP. Also, this is the second time the Times has made themselves part of the campaign.